1996 (11) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay of adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise based on a demand of duty. Classification dispute under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Exercise of inherent powers by the Tribunal to stay proceedings. Interpretation of Tribunal's Order regarding future clearances and provisional assessment. Rejection of the Miscellaneous Application.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a Miscellaneous Application seeking a stay of adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise due to a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,13,18,911.00 based on a classification dispute under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicant argued that a previous order by the Collector (Appeals) went against them, and the pending Show Cause Notice might result in a confirmation of a significant duty demand. The applicant sought a stay based on the Tribunal's inherent powers to avoid multiple proceedings, citing relevant case laws to support their position.

The Department clarified that no future clearances were directed to be provisional by the Tribunal, and the Department could assess goods as per law and Section 11AA. The Department opposed the stay, stating that the matter had been concluded against the appellant by the Tribunal, and a subsequent reference to a Larger Bench should not be a ground for staying proceedings before the lower adjudicating authority. The Department requested the rejection of the application.

The Tribunal, in its analysis, acknowledged its inherent power to stay proceedings but emphasized that such power should be exercised in rare cases. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already been granted a stay subject to certain conditions for proceedings pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified the Order regarding future clearances, stating that it did not direct provisional assessment and allowed the Excise Authorities to deal with future clearances as per law and Section 11AA to avoid circumventing provisions.

In citing precedents, the Tribunal distinguished the current case from previous judgments where stays were granted, emphasizing that the latest Tribunal decision was against the applicant. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue was not staying proceedings before them but before lower authorities, suggesting that the appellant could approach the Collector for a decision on keeping proceedings in abeyance. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Application based on the foregoing analysis.